UCAN' Expert Testimony on Sunrise PowerLink Alternatives
EXPERT TESTIMONY (PDF Format): The Draft Environmental Impact Report developed by California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) staff and Aspen Consulting, demonstrates that there are feasible alternatives to the Sunrise Transmission Project (STP) that are environmentally preferable. UCAN believes that some of these alternatives are also economically preferable.
Our experts assert that a variation on the Southern Route, or the "No Action" alternative are both economically and environmentally superior solutions to Sunrise. This analysis of flaws with STP lead UCAN to conclude that CPUC should reject SDG&E's proposal.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| PhaseIIUCANtest.pdf | 283.31 KB |
| UCANPhaseIIRebuttaltest.pdf | 302.15 KB |
Like what you see? Go ahead and show your support! UCAN is a truly independent non-profit watchdog organization, dependent on grassroots donations like yours!
Utility Consumers' Action Network
(619) 696-6966 or file a complaint about a company online.
Terms & Conditions
UCAN.org is made available by the Utility Consumers' Action Network to assist you in becoming what you always knew you could be, a consumer ROCK STAR! We take no corporate money, and are beholden only to you, the consumer. As such, the site is here for educational, advocacy, and empowerment purposes, as well to to give you general information and a general understanding of the law. Just remember this site is NOT here to provide specific legal advice. By using this web site you of course understand that there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Web Site publisher, UCAN. The Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
That said, get to digging on the site, inform yourself, speak your mind, and earn Watchdog Bones! This is YOUR site, and we mean it. So comment on any of the content, discuss the latest issues in the forums, file a complaint on a company with the fraud squad, and generally cut loose.
See our Privacy Policy and Copyright Policy, Some Rights Reserved
Shameful testimony
Trying to push the project south onto CNF is the wrong position to take. The environmental effects there will be comparable to the effects through the Park.
The strongest position is to oppose the need for transmission in it's entirety rather than make that argument first, and then point south in case it has to be built.
Actual testimony
We sure wish you'd read our testimony because our argument is that the line is not needed -- we emphasize that repeatedly. However, we do point out that there are less expensive alternatives. From our point of view, if the Commission is trying to choose between a line through a state park and one that parallels a major interstate highway (remember, I-8 goes through the CNF) then we think the Commission should be informed about the latter. But UCAN's position has been and will continue to be that Sunrise is not needed. And that's why we have repeatedly emphasized the No-Action option.
Post new comment